alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

The Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of January 1, 2008 between Windstream Corporation and Jeffery R. Gardner (the
“Agreement”) is amended, effective as of December 21, 2009, as follows: 
 1. The definitions in subsections 1.1,
1.3, and 1.16 of Section 1 of the Agreement are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with “RESERVED”. 
 2. The definition of “Severance Benefits” contained in subsection 1.15 of the Agreement is hereby replaced and superseded in its entirety as follows: 
 “1.15 “Severance Benefits” shall mean a lump sum payment, in cash, equal to the Executive’s annual Base Salary multiplied by three, which amount shall be in lieu of any severance
benefits to which the Executive would otherwise be entitled under any severance plan, program, policy or practice or contract or agreement of the Windstream Group.” 
 3. Section 2(B) of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing, where appropriate, the date “December 31, 2009” with the date “December 31, 2012”. 
 4. Section 7.5(B) of the Agreement is hereby replaced and superseded in its entirety as follows: 
 “(B) Upon a termination by Windstream other than for Cause or by the Executive for Good Reason under this Section 7.5 during the
Term, Windstream shall pay or provide or cause another member of the Windstream Group to pay or provide to the Executive in full satisfaction of all amounts due (i) the Ordinary Termination Benefits in a single lump sum within 10 business days
after the Termination Date, and (ii) the Severance Benefits in a single lump sum within 10 business days after the Release Deadline set forth in Section 7.6.” 
 5. Section 7.6 of the Agreement is hereby replaced and superseded in its entirety as follows: 
 “7.6 Release. 
 Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, Windstream shall only be obligated to pay or provide Severance Benefits if the Executive timely executes and does not timely revoke a release of claims in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Release”). The Release must be signed by the Executive and become effective and irrevocable in accordance with its terms (taking into account any applicable revocation period set forth therein),
within 30 days after the date of the Executive’s Termination Date (the “Release Deadline”).” 







 6. Except as explicitly set forth herein, the Agreement will remain in full force and
effect. 
  

			
	WINDSTREAM CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ John P. Fletcher

	Name:	 	John P. Fletcher
	Title:	 	 Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

		
		 	 /s/ Jeffery R. Gardner

		 	Jeffery R. Gardner


  

 2
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-138323, 333-61572, 333-57742 and 333-65673) of Young Innovations, Inc. of our report dated March 11, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Young Innovations, Inc. and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which report appears in this Form 10-K of Young Innovations, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008.

 

|   | /s/ Crowe Horwath LLP |
|--------|-----------------------|

 

|   | Crowe Horwath LLP |
|--------|-------------------|

 

Oak Brook, Illinois

March 11, 2009
ex10a.htm


    


    


    Exhibit
10(a)

    


    


    


    Consent of Ernst
& Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    


    


    We consent to the
reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm” and to the
use of our reports dated (a) March 18, 2009, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
and (b) March 20, 2009, with respect to the financial statements of
Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account C, in Post-Effective Amendment No. 21
to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-68842) pertaining to
Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account C, which is incorporated by reference
into Post-Effective Amendment No. 24.

    


                                                  /s/ Ernst & Young
LLP

     

    Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania

    December 2,
2009
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Annual Report of Optical Cable Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of October 31, 2006, and for the period then ended.



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Neil D. Wilkin, Jr.                                                  
|Neil D. Wilkin, Jr.                                                      
|Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                                                         
|January 29, 2007
# C_2020095EN.01003201.xml

| 23.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/32

---

Order of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — Shindler and Others v Council

(Case T-541/19) (1)

(Action for failure to act - Law governing the institutions - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union - UK citizens residing in another EU Member State - 2019 European elections - Application for postponement of the European elections - Lack of standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 95/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Harry Shindler (Porto d'Ascoli, Italy) and the five other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Council acted unlawfully by failing to adopt a decision postponing the 2019 European elections with a view to allowing the applicants to play a part in the ballot.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Harry Shindler and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Harry Shindler and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

---
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 28 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 

for an event to award the Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to 

the 100th Infantry Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team, and 

the Military Intelligence Service, United States Army, in recognition 

of their dedicated service during World War II. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 2, 2011 

Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mrs. BOXER) submitted the following concurrent 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol 

Visitor Center for an event to award the Congressional 

Gold Medal, collectively, to the 100th Infantry Battalion, 

442nd Regimental Combat Team, and the Military Intelligence Service, United States Army, in recognition of 

their dedicated service during World War II. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT TO 

4 AWARD THE CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL. 

5 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Emancipation Hall in the 

6 Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to be used for an 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 28 IS 

1 event on November 2, 2011, to award the Congressional 

2 Gold Medal, collectively, to the 100th Infantry Battalion, 

3 442nd Regimental Combat Team, and the Military Intel4 ligence Service, United States Army, in recognition of 

5 their dedicated service during World War II. 

6 (b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the 

7 conduct of the event described in subsection (a) shall be 

8 carried out in accordance with such conditions as may be 

9 prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Darren Johnakin, Respondent, v James Racette, as Superintendent of Adirondack Correctional Facility, et al., Appellants.

Casey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Crangle, J.), entered July 24, 1984 in Clinton County, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul the determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Respondents contend that petitioner waived his right to inmate assistance at the Superintendent’s proceeding on charges of marihuana use that were contained in a misbehavior report and that, therefore, petitioner cannot now claim the denial of such right as a basis for challenging the administrative determination affirming the disposition of the Superintendent’s proceeding. Petitioner claims that he was entitled to assistance under 7 NYCRR 251-4.1,1 which provides:

> “An inmate shall have the opportunity to pick an employee from an established list of persons who shall assist the inmate when a misbehavior report has been issued against the inmate if * * *

> *580“(b) the complexity of the issues make [sic] it unlikely that the inmake [sic] will be able to collect and present the evidence necessary for an adequate comprehension of the case”.

This right to assistance granted by 7 NYCRR 251-4.1 (b) is no broader than that afforded to an inmate by the due process clause of the US Constitution, as articulated by the Supreme Court in *Wolff v McDonnell*(418 US 539, 570). Accordingly, we are concerned with a right of constitutional dimension, which can only be waived upon a showing that the inmate was informed of its existence and made a knowing and intelligent waiver *(Matter of Burke v Coughlin,*97 AD2d 862, 863),2 and the existence of such a knowing and intelligent waiver must appear in the record of the Superintendent’s proceeding under review. That record herein contains nothing to indicate that petitioner was advised of the right, was aware of its existence or had any knowledge of its scope. Documents from prior Superintendent’s proceedings involving petitioner, submitted with respondents answer, were not a part of the Superintendent’s proceeding under review herein and have no bearing on whether petitioner knew that he had a right to assistance due to the complexity of the issues in this particular case and elected to proceed without assistance.

Special Term’s judgment annulling the administrative determination should therefore be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Main, J. P., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

1

. On this appeal, respondents do not dispute petitioner’s claim that he was entitled to assistance, but instead rely upon the waiver argument.

2

. Since assistance in a complex case is a due process right as well as a regulatory right, *Matter of Collazo v Wilmot*(75 AD2d 655, 656), upon which respondents rely, is not applicable.
#### In re Darrel RIVIERE, Petitioner.

No. 11-2658.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. June 30, 2011.

Opinion filed: Aug. 4, 2011.

*84Darrel Riviere, Salters, SC, pro se.

U.S. Atty SC, Office of United States Attorney, Christiansted, VI, for United States of America.

Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Darrel Riviere petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands to comply with our order of November 22, 2010, in which we instructed the court to re-weigh the factors of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) in determining whether to grant Riviere’s motion to reopen his time to appeal. *See Riviere v. United States,*No. 10-3371 (order entered on Nov. 22, 2010). His petition emphasizes that a great deal of time has passed since his original notice of appeal and a substantial amount of time has elapsed since our November 2010 order.

Riviere filed his petition on June 18, 2011, and we received it on June 20. A mere two days later, the District Court issued a detailed order reweighing the Rule 4(a)(6) factors and granting Riviere’s request to reopen the time to file his notice of appeal. As Riviere has now been given the entirety of the relief he asked us to compel, we will deny his petition for mandamus as moot.
# C_2020390EN.01003102.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-370/19) (1)

(External relations - Technical cooperation - Electronic communications - Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 - Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications - Article 35(2) of Regulation 2018/1971 - Participation of regulatory authorities of third countries in that body - Participation of the national regulatory authority of Kosovo - Concept of third country - Error of law)

(2020/C 390/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, M. Kellerbauer and T. Ramopoulos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of 18 March 2019 on the participation of the National Regulatory Authority of Kosovo in the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (OJ 2019 C 115, p. 26).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David P. Davidson, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J.—robbery, third degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Slice of Life, LLC :

and Val Kleyman, :

Appellants :

:

v. : No. 941 C.D. 2016

:

Hamilton Township :

Zoning Hearing Board :

and Hamilton Township :

O R D E R

NOW, August 7, 2017, having considered appellees’ application for 

reargument and appellants’ answer in response thereto, the application is denied.

 

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

 President Judge
# C_2020175EN.01002102.xml

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Gamma-A v EUIPO — Zivju pārstrādes uzņēmumu serviss (Packaging for foodstuffs)

(Case T-352/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing packaging for foodstuffs - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - No different overall impression - Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2020/C 175/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gamma-A SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: M. Liguts, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zivju pārstrādes uzņēmumu serviss SIA (Riga) (represented by: J. Alfejeva, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2019 (Case R 2516/2017-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Piejūra SIA and Gamma-A.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gamma-A SIA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gamma-A SIA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.

---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED NCI, LLC F/K/A AUTO GLASS STORE, LLC A/A/O ANTHONY DEFUSCO ,

Appellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 21

- 1773 LT Case No. 2019

- SC

- 003428

- O PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY AND PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellees. ________________________________/ Opinion filed November 15, 2022 Nonfinal Appeal from the County Court for Orange County, Carly S. Wish, Judge. Earl I. Higgs, Jr., of Higgs Law , P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Lissette M. Gonzalez, of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Appellees. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. NCI, LLC v. Progressive Select Ins. , No. 5D21-1282, 2022 WL 16702296 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov. 4, 2022).

SASSO , TRAVER and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
      32.2**


CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Med-Emerg International Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
      Danis Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§
1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
      best of my knowledge:





1) The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2) The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      November 30, 2005





By:
            /s/
                William
                DanisName:
                William DanisTitle:
                Chief Financial Officer
# C_2019182EN.01001802.xml

| 27.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/18

---

Appeal brought on 19 February 2019 by BTB Holding Investments SA and Duferco Participations Holding SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 11 December 2018 in Case T-100/17, BTB Holding Investments SA and Duferco Participations Holding SA v Commission

(Case C-148/19 P)

(2019/C 182/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: BTB Holding Investments SA, Duferco Participations Holding SA (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff, M. Favart, Q. Declève, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Foreign Strategic Investments Holding (FSIH)

Form of order sought

The appellants submit that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2018, BTB Holding Investments and Duferco Participations Holding v Commission (T-100/17); |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2018, BTB Holding Investments and Duferco Participations Holding v Commission (T-100/17);

| — | Refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By their appeal against judgment T-100/17, the appellants submit that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court infringed their right to a fair hearing when it stated that, ‘in order to establish that the Commission made a manifest error in the [complex economic] assessment of the facts justifying the annulment of the contested decision, the evidence adduced by the applicant must be sufficient to make the assessment of the facts in the decision at issue implausible’. The appellants submit that, in particular, the General Court infringed the principles relating to the burden of proof and the principle of equality of arms.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7443

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIE FRANK GRAVETTE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CR-91-5-MU, CR-91-6-ST, CR-91-15-MU-SH, CA-92-63-MU)

Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997

Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Frank Gravette, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and finding no merit in Appellant's additional claims, and we

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Gravette, Nos. CR-91-5-MU; CR-91-6-ST; CR91-15-MU-SH; CA-92-63-MU (W.D.N.C. Aug. 8, 1996). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED